Male circumcision has various socio-cultural
significances and it had been practiced by different human communities before
the appearance of monotheistic religions (Hastings, 1980; Abu Sahlieh, 1999). It
is a tradition based on Animist rites. However, many Muslim and Jewish clergy
consider circumcision as a rite of their religions as well. At the level of
social interpretation, infant male Jewish circumcision could be an alternative
for human sacrifice of the first born son; while Arab, African, and Australian
adolescent male circumcision could be a rite of passage from childhood to
manhood.

...male circumcision is
mentioned in neither Qur'an nor Gospels.

Unlike the Bible, male circumcision is
mentioned in neither Qur'an nor Gospels. The obligatory requirement of male
circumcision by Judaism could be explained by the fact that Judaism represents a
closed tribal community with primary social organization that depends on
mechanical solidarity. In such social organization similarity is mandatory, and
any deviation from similarity is severely punished (Durkheim, 1893). This
explains the Biblical threat to cut the soul of any uncircumcised male from his
people On the other hand, Christianity and Islam represent more open social
organizations, which are nearer to the Durkheiman model of organic solidarity,
where differences are more tolerated. Moreover, the Deity in Islam and
Christianity takes a more sublime image that does not require human blood
sacrifice.

In modern times, some Jewish doctors could
introduce male circumcision to the modern medical practice in Victorian England
on the assumption that it can prevent masturbation. The practice spread from
there to the medical institutions in other English-speaking countries and
colonies (Wallerstein, 1980, Hodges 1995). Hence, male circumcision became part
of the modern Egyptian medical study and practice. Moreover, modern medical
sciences and some medieval medical practices coexist in Egypt. Some barbers are
officially licensed to perform male circumcision, bloodletting, leeching, and
other minor surgeries, which are known historically as Prophetic medicine (Al
Tib Al Nabawy). Peter Gran argues that such practices originated initially in
Jewish medicine (Gran 1979). Thus, both old traditional, and modern western
beliefs cooperated to establish male circumcision as a surgery that is willingly
demanded by people and supplied by surgeons.

This gliding movement is the
natural mechanism
of sexual pleasure in human males.
Otherwise, sex is performed by a frictional movement,
which is less satisfactory to both partners.

The exact anatomy, histology, and
physiological sexual function of the male prepuce were ignored till the 1990s,
when they were studied and described by the Canadian doctor John Taylor (Taylor
1996). Unlike the widely prevalent belief among circumcision proponents that
the prepuce is just a piece of skin, which is not as significant as the head of
the penis, it was proved that it is a highly specialized tissue. It contains
sensory receptors of light touch, which are lacking in the head of the penis. It
was thought that the only function of the prepuce is its being a protective
cover to the head of the penis. But more recent research argue that protection
is a mutual function between the prepuce and the head of the penis, where the
latter provides shape to the former, and facilitates its gliding movement during
coitus (see appendix 3). This gliding movement is the natural mechanism of
sexual pleasure in human males. It stimulates the specific sense receptors of
the inner layer of the prepuce to generate a pleasurable sensation. Otherwise,
sex is performed by a frictional movement, which is less satisfactory to both
partners. The situation is made more difficult by the lack of the natural male
lubricant, which is normally produced by specific glands in the prepuce (Taylor
1996, Bigelow 1992). There were also some earlier studies on the prepuce (Deibert,
1933; Wright, 1970).
Such studies proved that the prepuce is an integral part of the normal male
genitalia. Nevertheless, Egyptian medical texts do not mention any of its useful
functions. Given the above-mentioned information, circumcision is a deliberate
amputation of a healthy part of another non-consenting person’s body. It is an
amputation that is performed on helpless children according to cultural
pressures (Zoske 1998). According
to Denniston (1997), mutilation is any injury that results in removal or
alteration of the appearance or function of a body part. Thus, male
circumcision, which has similar cultural, social, and biological bases as female
circumcision, could be considered genital mutilation.

...they circumcised them
because they were afraid to obey reason
and challenge a conservative tradition.

Respondents who are parents of male children
did not think that they gain any personal benefit by circumcising their sons.
They suffered because of their children’s sufferings. However, they
circumcised them because they were afraid to obey reason and challenge a
conservative tradition. Acting like this, these intellectual respondents who
used to lecture against FGM on "rational basis" behaved exactly like
grassroots people who circumcise their daughters. Analysis of the respondents’
experience with their own and sons’ circumcision revealed that it is not in
the child’s best interest. They reported memories of bleeding, stress, pain,
urinary tract infection, and behavioral changes after male circumcision. Even
the only respondent who could trespass the shock of his circumcision because he
got a lot of psychological support and social compensation during and after his
ritual circumcision ceremony said that other boys who were circumcised along
with him were really shocked in spite of the supporting ceremony. Some of his
peers resisted, tried to escape, and expressed verbal and non-verbal protest
against circumcision.

Male and female circumcision
do not serve men, women, or children
as social categories. It rather serves the persistence of
patriarchal gender power balance...

So, male and female circumcision do not serve
men, women, or children as social categories. It rather serves the persistence
of patriarchal gender power balance that presupposes a peculiar symbolic
formation of the body to establish a clear gender differentiation. Accordingly,
circumcision removes the delicate, protective, and sensitive (all feminine
characteristics) part from the male genitalia; and the strong, hard, active (all
masculine characteristics) part from the female genitalia. Because circumcision
results into useless unnecessary pain and harm for the individual, it is not a
health procedure. It is a practice with symbolic and political nature. Its
hygienic justifications are nothing but a tool to put such social body politics
into action.

In addition to its role in gender power
politics, circumcision establishes hierarchical power relationships at different
levels of social organization. It encourages conformity to old traditions for
no other reason apart from their antiquity, discourages taking any initiative
towards change, and requires repression of any sympathy with individual
sufferings if such sympathy challenges a tradition. Thus, continuation of
circumcision establishes a model of behavior characterized by absolute
submission to the orders of seniors and an inclination to keep the status quo.
This model is publicly known as "abd el ma’mour", i.e. the
slave of the major. This model conflicts with some key social roles of the
intellectuals. Intellectuals have to use updated knowledge for ongoing revision
and development of theories and practice in order to develop a better future for
their communities. The intellectual respondents whom I interviewed stated that
they act against FGM because modern medical and social sciences told them that
it hinders women’s development, and consequently social development. This
attitude is correct. However, to be consistent, the same approach should be
adopted in all social issues. Nevertheless, intellectuals are not a homogeneous
entity, neither are they separate from all other social groups.

The same approach is needed
to break the silence
around male circumcision.

So, as part of the community, intellectuals
are aware of the predominant social biases. I think that they need wide
discussion of their own biases before they can really assimilate new knowledge
instead of their older beliefs. This process took place in the issue of FGM in
Egypt. The barrier of silence was broken by persistent social interaction about
the issue. Men and women were encouraged to exchange experiences and points of
views on FGM. Researchers contributed in the process by their field studies and
situation analyses. The same approach is needed to break the silence around male
circumcision. Men need to be encouraged to express their experiences, biases and
feelings, with all due respect to whatever they express. The data given by men
need to be analyzed, so that they can be provided by different interpretations
for their biases. When this happens, it will enhance the adoption of a
consistent intellectual and humane attitude towards MGM, exactly as it happened
with FGM. Moreover, it will enhance the settlement of a comprehensive vision for
gender issues. Social construction of femininity and masculinity is the focus of
gender politics. Moving towards more egalitarian gender power politics will
improve the social conditions of men and women. This will be impossible with
addressing social construction of femininity alone.

Physicians consider the sexual and excretory
organs as dirty body parts. Such medical bias plays a role in the continuation
of MGM. Society considers medical doctors as knowledgeable people who give
health care. Moreover, getting doctors’ services requires a sort of financial
ability. Wealth and education are positive social attributes. Thus, community
members who seek medical doctors’ services and obey their instructions (or
rather their biases) are considered well-to-do and educated persons. On the
other hand, retention of the prepuce is considered as a mark of ignorance,
negligence, and poverty; because medical doctors disdain it. Nevertheless, other
body parts, like the mouth, are known to be dirty according to objective
bacteriological criteria. Even one of my medical professors used to tell us that
the mouth is dirtier than the anus. However, no doctor will rush to cut parts of
the mouth or extract teeth as a "preventive" measure. In these two
examples (the mouth and the male genitalia) medical doctors behave according to
their social biases not to their scientific knowledge. Analysis of the body
parts that are either excised by doctors for "prevention" of diseases,
or are thought by some of them as "useless" (like Dr. Afkar’s
beliefs towards the toes) reveal a relationship between the doctors’ and the
traditional cultural biases towards the same body parts. For example, a social
researcher in North Africa found bias against the uvula (the projecting tissue
between the tonsils), and that barbers used to excise it from children’s
throats as a traditional ritual surgery (Prual 1994). The modern medical
analogue to this practice is "preventive tonsillectomy" that prevailed
in medical practice for a long time, till studies proved the relevance of the
tonsils as part of the immune system. Dr. Afkar’s thoughts about the toes
could be a theoretical analogue to the tradition of foot binding which was
practiced in China on girl children. The practice ended when the Chinese people
broke the silence around it. There is even a study that found a link between
Chinese foot binding and African infibulation (Mackie 1996).

The fact that medical doctors still perform
male circumcision indicates the need for more elaborate social studies about the
relationship between the traditional cultural biases and the professional
medical practices. In the chapter that describes the respondents’ experience
with male circumcision, we find many indicators that signify that medical
doctors handle circumcision as a traditional ritual wounding rather than as a
scientific surgery. Contemporary society assumes that doctors should provide
people with healing and preventive services that are based on the most updated
medical science. In this respect, taking science as a reference serves the
community’s best interests. That is why doctors should not take traditions as
their point of reference when they conflict with physical integrity and
psychological welfare. Hence, they should stop performing circumcision. When
circumcision is tested according to the criteria of modern science, we find that
it is a surgery in search of a justification. For the last one and half
centuries, medical doctors changed their justification for male and female
circumcision from treatment to prevention. Similarly, they always changed its
indication to fit the most feared disease of the time. So, they first
recommended circumcision to treat and prevent masturbation, then venereal
diseases, then cancer, to end with AIDS.

Prevention and treatment of masturbation was
the first justification to be invalidated by research. Accordingly, medical
doctors stopped performing FGM. Although venereal diseases, cancer, and AIDS
were equally invalidated by medical research as justifications for male
circumcision, doctors continued to perform MGM, and justify it by the need to
conform to the dominant social traditions.

Medical practice in the
third millennium should follow
more updated scientific and ethical models.

It is time for the medical profession to
trespass the last centuries’ models of handling the human body, which are
described by Foucault in his book The Birth of the Clinic (Foucault
1975). Medical practice in the third millennium should follow more updated
scientific and ethical models. I think that breaking the barrier of silence
around MGM will raise a wide debate among medical doctors about this issue,
exactly as it happened with FGM. Such a debate would attract the most
enlightened and scientific minded doctors to the new model, which would
encourage them to stick to the first principle of the medical ethics
"first, do no harm." Surgery should be the last resort in any medical
plan for treatment of sick persons, and it should never be performed on healthy
persons. Ethically and scientifically speaking, there is nothing called
"preventive surgery." Doctors will change their attitude towards MGM
when they start to recognize that it is not appropriate to repeat the ideas of a
minority of Victorian doctors, who ignored that circumcision removes the most
sensitive part of the penis, and interferes with the natural mechanism of sexual
satisfaction (see appendix 3). The Victorian doctors’ ideas pre-dated the
British occupation of Egypt. Now, with Egypt’s liberation, is it not high time
for the minds of Egyptian doctors to be liberated too?

Revision of the medical institution’s
attitude should include medical education as well as medical practice; because
it is important to disseminate the most updated information to medical students
and young doctors, as well as to the public. Moreover, criticism of the
traditional cultural biases, bearing in mind the modern information should be
encouraged, with the health interests of the children in focus. This criticism
should take place through ongoing medical education. With the great evolution of
scientific discoveries in our time, education is no more a close-ended process "khatm
el ilm." Doctors should not consider what they studied to fulfill the
requirements of their degrees as a perpetual given. All of the medical tools,
whether they are pills or scalpels, are double-edged weapons. Various users use
weapons differently. Criminals use weapons to serve their personal interests;
executors use weapons to serve legal sentences; and medical doctors use weapons
to heal people’s sicknesses. Thus, it is doctors’ duty to use their tools
according to the most updated medical knowledge, not to their own cultural
biases.

The medical institution is also responsible
for translation of medical knowledge and making it available to the public.
Scientific writings are not similar to artistic ones. For example, novels,
paintings, or symphonies will always have the same significance to the audience.
This is not the case with theories of science, because unlike products of art,
they develop and change with time. That is why scientific writings should not be
translated once and for all. The latest edition of any medical text should be
consulted before publishing a new edition of its translated version. Without
this necessary precaution, re-printing of old medical theories will turn into a
tool for deceiving the public instead of enlightening and upgrading their
awareness.

Feminism...is for building
new and fairer social politics
for both genders, especially children.

After she knew the new information about
anatomy and physiology of the male prepuce, Dr. Salma stated that she felt like
bursting into tears, and that such information should not be concealed from men,
who have every right to know it. This is a consistent feminist attitude. Women
suffered for a long time from patriarchal social obstacles that hindered their
acquisition of knowledge, which may help them to improve their status (Smith
1987). Women will not gain more benefits or empowerment by playing the same
unfair role with the assumption that men are the primary beneficiaries from the
new information about their bodies’ anatomy and physiology. Feminism is not
for women only. It is for building new and fairer social politics for both
genders, especially children. Now, with the defeat of the false hygienic
justifications for male circumcision, its ugly and unfair face is revealed: a
blood and flesh sacrifice presented to the patriarchal society.

Women will also benefit from
defending male children’s rights.

The results of the study show that women
intellectuals are currently more ready than men intellectuals to launch the
issue of MGM. They are more ready to accept change and stop circumcising their
own sons, or advising others against male circumcision. Women will also benefit
from defending male children’s rights. When women acknowledge that gender
issues include men’s rights as well, more open-minded men will support women’s
rights.

(W)omen are recommended to
take the initiative to encourage men
to break the barrier of silence about MGM, to support them,
and be understandable when some of them show resistance or denial.

Of course, that does not mean that women
should dominate the advocacy against MGM. It rather means that women are
recommended to take the initiative to encourage men to break the barrier of
silence about MGM, to support them, and be understandable when some of them show
resistance or denial. Bringing an end to the silence that surrounded such a
taboo issue for thousands of years needs patience and persistent efforts to move
MGM from the arena of political and ideological conflict to that of the right of
bodily integrity for all as a basic human right.

Women’s defense of men’s right to bodily
integrity and their work against MGM will not have a negative impact on their
struggle against FGM. On the contrary, work against MGM will defeat the argument
that is used by some doctors that they can perform a sort of FGM analogous to
male circumcision, on the assumption that the later is a simple
"beautification" and non-harmful procedure.

When women revise their attitude from the
issues of other weak social categories they will win a lot. First, they will win
the direct personal benefit of protecting their own children from a useless,
hazardous, and maybe fatal injury. Second, they will get a general benefit,
because their new attitude will prove that the women’s rights movement is
useful to women, men, and the society as a whole.